Well I am intrigued and also happy to take advice.

I'm just waiting on Michael Bloomberg to throw his hat in the ring.

Pro USA & Israel

Did anyone watch the celebration speeches, Very informative for me. I watched DT and I could not help think that this is what it would have been like had Tony Soprano run for the presidency.

Nothing of substance at all, "It's gonna be great, better than ever and we're going to do it he old fashioned way". In other words more of the same. Lot's of billion dollar deals for his mates. Probably along the lines of his business in Scotland. I wanted to find something in what he was saying that would make me want to listen to more than I have heard him say already. Unfortunately I just don't think that he is a very nice person at all.

I just did not believe anything he said. I believe, that for him it's more about him being in the "Top Job" than it is about what can be done for the country.

I don't think he will win the election but may get the republican nomination but we'll see, I know he looks good for it now but there is still a long way to go.

He will not get the Hispanic/Black vote and that will cost him. The turnout would be high, as he is so divisive and that would go against him.

I'm surprised by Bernie, I never thought that someone with his politics would get a look in over the water. I guess people are so fed up of the same ole, same ole that they like the sound of what he has to say. Pretty much like here.

He will find it hard going but I believe he could beat Mrs Clinton, who is just more of the same for the electorate, imho.

Some of the things Bernie said rang a few alarm bells for me but the difference between Bernie and Don is that I believed Bernie and his record in office is at least consistant, it does what it says on the tin.

Obvious parallels will be made with Corbyn as both are socialists and getting on a bit, the one difference seems to be that Saunders can hold a platform.

This election has caught my imagination a bit this time round, interesting to see how it will all play out.

Whoever wins, with two candidates like these two, I can only really see the USA become even more divided.

P.S. Good post, Ray in Houston, I like to hear what the locals think and you made a few good points.

"You can lead a horse to water but a pencil must be lead"

Stan Laurel

I can understand that, same core message but a very different approach as to how to procede.

What does it feel like in the States for Joe? If both want his vote?

North eastern U.S. politics, I will do a bit of reading, I don't know much about it.

"You can lead a horse to water but a pencil must be lead"

Stan Laurel

At the risk of letting my liberal underoos flap in the wind...

It was Democrats - FDR and Obama - who pulled the U.S. out of its two largest financial crises. In both cases, they were stepping into a giant financial s***show that had been bequeathed to them by Republican predecessors.

It was a Republican - Eisenhower - who, post-war, built the country up to be the economic powerhouse it became. He did this through massive social programs like the G.I. Bill that were paid for by taxes on the rich of over 90%. Oh, and he was being heavily recruited to run as a Democrat before he chose the Republicans (because the Democrats were a mess at that time).

When modern Republicans hark back to a "better" time in America, ironically, many mean this period in the 50s. That was when a white man could fully support his family, own a home, and two cars and put his kids through college without them taking on debt. If you were a woman, or black, or gay, you were pretty much f***ed, but that's not who the modern Republicans are courting. Even more ironically, it is Republicans subsequent policies that have destroyed this "American Dream".

Those who look back a little shallower - to Reagan - conveniently forget that his administration was one of the most criminal in history (by count of how many of its members were convicted of crimes committed in office), the highlight being it selling weapons to Iran to fuel drug wars in South America. That episode gets sanitized by simply referring to it as "Iran-Contra", but the underlying crimes are breathtaking in their scope, as is Reagan's "we all know it happened but I choose not to believe it" defense. (Compare this to Clinton's heinous crime of lying about getting his dick sucked). Reagan also raised taxes more than any President before or since - but he raised them on the working class (payroll taxes) so he's forgiven this cardinal sin by current Republicans. (Bush Sr. raised taxes too).

It was a Democrat - Johnson - who championed Medicare, the U.S's first step in provide some kind of safety net for medical bills. This after the Democrat Roosevelt introduced Social Security. Combined these have acted to drop the poverty level among the elderly from a ridiculous 30+% to a merely disturbing high single digit %age.

Obama, of course, brought us "Obamacare". Originally labelled as such by Republicans, that name is now coming back to kick them in the balls as tens of millions of people have signed up for coverage to the point that the numbers have far overwhelmed any true Republican effort to actually repeal the law (Look at Kentucky's new tea party governor for proof).

So, looking back over time, ignoring the "RINO" Eisenhower, you have to go back all the way to Theodore Roosevelt in the early 1900s to find a Republican president who is well thought of. Before him? Abraham Lincoln. [Link]

I'll climb down from my soap box now...

Edited by Ray in Houston (11 Feb 2016 5.12pm)

We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football.

What Brother Nairb said.

We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football.